TheCid

Impeachment AND Conviction, 25th Amendment or Censure

389 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Impeachment Is a Refusal to Accept the Unacceptable

Taking action against Trump is a rejection of the idea that nothing matters.

 

 

"......The House should take up the task of examining the president’s conduct as detailed in the Mueller report and evaluating whether it is fitting of the person who holds the nation’s highest office. It should investigate the many other instances of potentially impeachable conduct by the president, from tweets to pardons. It should debate how to understand what constitutes a “high crime and misdemeanor,” and whether relatively minor offenses can accumulate over time into something worthy of impeachment.

The House should fulfill its constitutional duties and the process of constitutional interpretation, which by its nature is a declaration that the Constitution holds some significance........

 

Lincoln’s warning of the “approach of danger,” in context, was less about the political fracturing that would lead to the Civil War and more about the creeping acceptance of what should have been unacceptable. He decried “the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country;.....

It was this, in his mind, that pointed toward the death of the nation.

The antidote he offered was “the support of the Constitution and laws.” In the absence of that, the cynical country would become vulnerable to the approach of a dictator: ......

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/impeaching-trump-refuse-accept-unacceptable/590104/

That is exactly what they are doing with the House committee investigations.  When they have run their course or reached an insurmountable roadblock, then impeachment hearing is in order.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Congress’ fear to impeach is unprecedented: Presidential historian

 

....in the case of Richard Nixon after the Saturday Night Massacre, a lot of members of the House wanted impeachment, and also Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor, sent this secret over to the House that was called the Watergate roadmap.......... 1st of March, 1974, with supporting evidence, and that allowed the House to essentially go ahead. And that was considered to be so hot it wasn’t released until about seven months ago.”

“And then in the case of the Starr report, that was released to the public in September of 1998, and Starr sent that immediately to the House, along with 18 boxes of evidence. And once again, the members of the House, which was Republican at that point, said let’s impeach, and they began the investigation,” said Beschloss.

“There was not this feeling that we have to hold back because maybe we’ll look too political.”....

 

“And the other thing … those members of the House, they all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution,” added Beschloss. “And if they do not do anything about these possible crimes that Robert Mueller has described very vividly in this report, they’re essentially saying we’re not going to — we don’t care about the rule of law.

And obstructing justice, if that’s what Donald Trump has done, that will become the new normal. And later presidents will feel very free to do it too because they’ll just say the House will not do it if they think it will get them into political trouble.”

“What should always prevail is a feeling by members of the House that they’re going to protect the Constitution,” Beschloss concluded.

“And if they do not do that, we’re going to be in a lawless society, and we will lose our democracy.”.....

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/congress-fear-to-impeach-is-unprecedented-presidential-historian/

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mr6666 said:

 

Congress’ fear to impeach is unprecedented: Presidential historian

 

....in the case of Richard Nixon after the Saturday Night Massacre, a lot of members of the House wanted impeachment, and also Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor, sent this secret over to the House that was called the Watergate roadmap.......... 1st of March, 1974, with supporting evidence, and that allowed the House to essentially go ahead. And that was considered to be so hot it wasn’t released until about seven months ago.”

“And then in the case of the Starr report, that was released to the public in September of 1998, and Starr sent that immediately to the House, along with 18 boxes of evidence. And once again, the members of the House, which was Republican at that point, said let’s impeach, and they began the investigation,” said Beschloss.

“There was not this feeling that we have to hold back because maybe we’ll look too political.”....

 

“And the other thing … those members of the House, they all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution,” added Beschloss. “And if they do not do anything about these possible crimes that Robert Mueller has described very vividly in this report, they’re essentially saying we’re not going to — we don’t care about the rule of law.

And obstructing justice, if that’s what Donald Trump has done, that will become the new normal. And later presidents will feel very free to do it too because they’ll just say the House will not do it if they think it will get them into political trouble.”

“What should always prevail is a feeling by members of the House that they’re going to protect the Constitution,” Beschloss concluded.

“And if they do not do that, we’re going to be in a lawless society, and we will lose our democracy.”.....

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/congress-fear-to-impeach-is-unprecedented-presidential-historian/

Thanks for the post, BUT as I have said before:  This is not 1974 and the make-up of the House and Senate is not even remotely similar.  There are no liberal or moderate Republicans left in either the House or Senate.  There were many and maybe the majority of Republicans in 1974.

Also per Wikipedia, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 1974.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_United_States_Congress.  

Also note that the House did NOT impeach Nixon, much less that the Senate voted to convict.  The House did begin impeachment hearings and Judiciary Committee voted to approve three of five charges and referred it to the House.  Republican leaders convinced Nixon it was time to go and he resigned.  In addition, this happened shortly after the vice-President, Spiro Agnew,was forced to resign.  The times were different.

A footnote is that the Supreme Court forced Nixon to give all the tapes the White House had made to the committee and comply with subpoenas.  Would today's Supreme Court do that?  Maybe not. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the opinion for a unanimous court, joined by Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis F. Powell. Burger, Blackmun, and Powell were appointed to the Court by Nixon during his first term. Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

As for the Starr report, that involved Bill Clinton and it was seen by many, especially in the Senate, as a Republican smear campaign.  GOP controlled the House.  Sen. Lindsay Graham (R), S.C. was one of the managers (prosecutors) who presented the case to the Senate.    There were 55 Republicans in the Senate at the time.  50 voted for conviction on obstruction of justice and 45 voted for conviction on perjury.  67 votes were needed to convict and NO Dems. voted to convict. Note 5 Republicans voted against conviction on one charge and 10 voted against the other.  That was 20 years ago and there were still some moderate or liberal Republicans in Senate.

To summarize: the times, they have changed.  So, the Dems need to proceed cautiously and amass as much hard evidence as they can.  Otherwise they will play into the hands of the GOPers and Trump and lose the elections in 2020, from county to federal.

Remember also.  Trump was never supposed to be able to win the Republican nomination, much less become President of the United States - but he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not heard of anyone calling for the impeachment of any of Trump's cabinet or other administration officials.  They can do that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POLITICOVerified account @politico 5h5 hours ago

 
 

The House Judiciary Committee chair said there “certainly is” justification for launching impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump,

but cautioned that the public first must agree that it’s warranted

======================================================

Ryan Knight #ImpeachTrump 🍑 @ProudResister 4h4 hours ago

 
 

Nadler just said there is justification to impeach Trump, but not before the public is on board.

 

For goodness’ sake @RepJerryNadler. The public is not on board because Trump and Barr gaslighted them.

 

The only way to cut through their gaslighting is televised impeachment hearings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mr6666 said:

POLITICOVerified account @politico 5h5 hours ago

 
 

The House Judiciary Committee chair said there “certainly is” justification for launching impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump,

but cautioned that the public first must agree that it’s warranted

======================================================

Ryan Knight #ImpeachTrump 🍑 @ProudResister 4h4 hours ago

 
 

Nadler just said there is justification to impeach Trump, but not before the public is on board.

 

For goodness’ sake @RepJerryNadler. The public is not on board because Trump and Barr gaslighted them.

 

The only way to cut through their gaslighting is televised impeachment hearings.

Exactly!  Nadler knows whereof he speaks.  Considering how anxious he is to take on Trump and the GOPers, his comment speaks volumes.

It does not matter if Trump "gaslighted" the public or not.  What matters is what the public thinks and what they will do in Nov. 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

Andrew DesiderioVerified account @desiderioDC 2h2 hours ago

 
 

House Judiciary just announced the witnesses for Monday’s hearing on obstruction of justice.

In addition to John Dean, former US attorneys @JoyceWhiteVance & @BarbMcQuade & conservative legal scholar John Malcolm will testify.

Barbara McQuade is on MSNBC all the time.

she ain't exactly jane fonda appearance-wise.

:D

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read something interesting in The Week where they cited articles from NYMag.com, TalkingPointsMemo.com and TheAtlantic.com.

To summarize, they stated that this is not 1974 and what worked to get Nixon to resign (never impeached) will not work today.  For one thing, you no longer have a fairly objective media reporting to the people.  You have fairly biased national news programs, bloggers, tweeters, talk radio and God knows what else.  Many of the people live in a "conservative echo chamber" that would make this appear to be another attack on the president.  I have friends who live in that chamber.

Also, it would be far more damaging to Trump for the many investigations in the House to proceed to uncover all the various misdeeds by Trump and his campaign.  This will be a barrage that Trump will be unable to address and it will damage him (and the GOP) in the 2020 elections.

Impeachment focuses on a few incidents and one question: impeach or not.  Trump and his believers will easily have time and resources to counter those.  Then when Trump wins in the Senate, he will be validated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

There are 435 seats in the House, assuming all are filled.  So it would take 218 to vote for impeachment.  71 is a hell of a long way from 218. Assuming Pelosi let it get to floor in first place.  There are 235 Dems. and 199 GOPers now.  You could only lose 34 Dem votes and many of them are in purple or red districts.

First, there would be an impeachment investigatory committee to investigate and determine if impeachment warranted.  Then it goes to floor (if Pelosi allows).  There there is debate ( I assume) and then a vote to impeach.

Then it goes to Senate and McConnell and Graham (chmn. Senate Judiciary Committee) will have all kinds of hell to raise about it.

Not sure what the timeline would be, but it would be very close to the elections at some point.

I know there are a lot of people on this site and in the country who would love to see Trump impeached.  Don't forget, Pence becomes president if Trump impeached.  Not saying that impeachment is a bad idea, but I very much prefer Dems. replace Trump and Pence with Dems. and gain control of Senate while keeping the House.  This can only be done by winning the 2020 elections in the states and nation.

I'm not sure, but I think Pence could more easily be re-elected president than Trump.  Ain't that scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard W. Painter @RWPUSA 9h9 hours ago

 
 

The idiotic refusal to impeach Trump makes it easy for witnesses to refuse to answer questions

and for Trump Administration officials to refuse to turn over documents with impunity.

All the House gets from them is the middle finger.

Stupid.  <_<

This Passage From Hope Hicks’ Testimony Crystallizes the Inanity of the Democrats’ Impeachment Stance

.........prior to Hicks’ testimony, the White House had asserted an “absolute immunity” that it said would prevent her from testifying about anything she did during her time working for the administration. The White House had previously asserted such absolute immunity to block the testimony of key obstruction of justice witness and former White House counsel Don McGahn, as well as a broad executive privilege to prevent the release of the full Mueller report and all underlying evidence.

Previous presidents have asserted absolute immunity to prevent aides from testifying to Congress based on a principle that advisers act as an extension of the president and are therefore afforded similar rights to private deliberations under executive privilege. But no court has ever found that such absolute immunity allows an administration’s aides to refuse to testify. In a 2008 district court ruling, the only judge to ever decide the issue rejected an assertion of absolute immunity by former White House counsel Harriet Miers.......

 

Jerry Nadler has indicated he is going to challenge the “absolute immunity” claim in court, but it could be a lengthy litigation process, and he would have a much stronger hand if he were to open an official impeachment inquiry. ..........

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/hope-hicks-testimony-nancy-pelosi-impeachment-futility.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Richard W. Painter @RWPUSA 9h9 hours ago

 
 

The idiotic refusal to impeach Trump makes it easy for witnesses to refuse to answer questions

and for Trump Administration officials to refuse to turn over documents with impunity.

All the House gets from them is the middle finger.

Stupid.  <_<

This Passage From Hope Hicks’ Testimony Crystallizes the Inanity of the Democrats’ Impeachment Stance

.........prior to Hicks’ testimony, the White House had asserted an “absolute immunity” that it said would prevent her from testifying about anything she did during her time working for the administration. The White House had previously asserted such absolute immunity to block the testimony of key obstruction of justice witness and former White House counsel Don McGahn, as well as a broad executive privilege to prevent the release of the full Mueller report and all underlying evidence.

Previous presidents have asserted absolute immunity to prevent aides from testifying to Congress based on a principle that advisers act as an extension of the president and are therefore afforded similar rights to private deliberations under executive privilege. But no court has ever found that such absolute immunity allows an administration’s aides to refuse to testify. In a 2008 district court ruling, the only judge to ever decide the issue rejected an assertion of absolute immunity by former White House counsel Harriet Miers.......

 

Jerry Nadler has indicated he is going to challenge the “absolute immunity” claim in court, but it could be a lengthy litigation process, and he would have a much stronger hand if he were to open an official impeachment inquiry. ..........

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/hope-hicks-testimony-nancy-pelosi-impeachment-futility.html

 

Apparently Richard W. Painter does not have a clue as to how the US government actually functions, despite his education and former positions in government.  He just hates Trump.

Hicks could also have raised the absolute immunity defense in an impeachment hearing as well.  While Nadler or others may have a stronger argument in an impeachment hearing, the issue is still legally the same.

The political context remains the same.  Impeachment hearings based on a rush for publicity's sake without a very firm foundation works in the favor of the Republicans AND TRUMP!  Pelosi knows that, Nadler knows that.  The Dems are building their case brick by brick which will result in a WALL Trump cannot get over.  If impeachment is necessary.

The best hope for getting rid of Trump and changing the course of America's future is to win and win big in 2020 at the local, state and federal levels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us